In May 2016, continuing its collaboration with the UN Counter-Terrorism Committee Executive Directorate, INSCT was invited to join The Prevention Project, directed by former US Department of State counterterrorism official Eric Rosand through the Global Center on Cooperative Security. The project aims to support UN member states’ efforts to deal holistically and constructively with citizens who travel to fight with extremist and terrorist organizations, by developing effective community-led and, where appropriate, legal and administrative rehabilitation and reintegration programs.

Workshops

On April 28, 2017, students in INSCT Director of Research Corri Zoli’s National Security and Counterterrorism Research Center presented research findings in the workshop “Understanding Interdisciplinary Responses to International Terrorism & Violent Extremisms” at SU College of Law. The students’ work was the culmination of a semester-long partnership with Emory University, George Washington University, and the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Strategic Partnerships with Colleges and Universities.

Workshop topics included the role of the UN in crafting international counterterrorism policy; women’s leadership roles in terrorist organizations; the importance of anti-extremist K-12 educational programs; cross-cultural perspectives on CVE programs that work in other countries; the experience of vulnerable communities with CVE in the US; the challenge of implementing counterterrorist and counter-extremist laws and statutes; and the role of “hard” and “soft” power CVE mechanisms, including drones.

Read More

The photo shows law student Brittany Howell presenting on “Countering Foreign Terrorist Fighters: The Importance of Internal Security for Outlier Nations” in which she examined the CVE programs of Tunisia, Belgium, and Indonesia. Her conclusion was that Indonesia, in contrast to Belgium and Tunisia, presents one of the most successful CVE efforts, thanks to strong internal security measures that go above and beyond what UNSCR Resolution 2178 demands.

This capstone project began when INSCT Director William Banks and Zoli were tapped by DHS as subject matter experts, along with Emory Law Professor Laurie Blank and George Washington Center for Cyber and Homeland Security Deputy Director Seamus Hughes, to provide recommendations to Secretary John F. Kelly for improving strategic partnerships with colleges, universities, and the K-12 communities in fostering CVE-related academic research and programming. Students’ research toward developing these recommendations have been submitted to the DHS Academic Advisory Council and to Secretary Kelly.

Building Off-Ramps and Reintegrating Foreign Fighters and Terrorist Offenders (Challenges and Opportunities)

The rehabilitation and reintegration of terrorism offenders, returned foreign (terrorist) fighters, and (suspected) violent extremists is among the most pressing, yet politically and legally complex, issues facing policymakers and practitioners focused on countering and preventing the spread of violent extremism.

This one-day workshop brings together a diverse group of civil society practitioners, policymakers, and issue experts to highlight the challenges and lessons learned from rehabilitation and reintegration programs. Participants will enumerate a series of practical recommendations for government and non-government stakeholders to consider as they seek enhance the effectiveness of this critical element of the CVE tool-kit. The discussion will help shape one core section of The Prevention Project final report.

Read More

An increasing number of countries are currently grappling with how to respond to the return of the estimated 30% of the some 30,000 people who have travelled from more than 100 countries to fight in Syria and Iraq or how to handle those individuals who choose to reject violent ideologies and defect from terrorist groups such as Boko Haram or al-Shabaab and rehabilitate and reintegrate them back into their communities.

There is growing recognition that not all returnees or defectors can nor should be prosecuted or otherwise handled by law enforcement or security services. A small but rising number of programs are now in place that provide “off ramps” for those individuals back into civilian life where it has been determined that they do not, or no longer, pose a threat to society and their communities.

Many countries still do not have in place programs tailored to effectively reintegrate former fighters either due to lack of political will and/or capacity at the national level; in some cases, existing programs are too small to meet the demand and in other instances they do not include the necessary involvement of community and religious leaders and other civil society partners whose participation is critical to facilitating reintegration into the relevant local community. Moreover, in many countries, counterterrorism and criminal justice legal frameworks, which have generally been expanded to include foreign terrorist fighters since the United Nations Security Council’s adoption of Resolution 2178, impede the ability of civil society leaders and NGOs to engage with and otherwise support the rehabilitation and reintegration back into society of returnees or “formers.”

Governments and civil society are seeking to advance more effective and comprehensive approaches to reduce engagement in and support for violent extremism worldwide—and in an increasing number of instances, they are seeking to involve “formers” or “defectors” in messaging or other campaigns to counter narratives. It is also the prevailing sense of the field that productive engagement with “formers” or “defectors” can lower recidivism rates by ensuring meaningful non-illicit livelihoods options. Moving towards these programs will require new or reformed legal frameworks to support the successful implementation of rehabilitation and reintegration programs tailored to meet the needs of the returnees or other terrorism offenders.

2 p.m. – 3:15 p.m. Session 4: Role of non-security and non-government partners—including local communities, NGOs, and the private sector—in supporting rehabilitation/reintegration efforts (speakers will share specific examples of initiatives in this and related fields, e.g., DDR or gang violence)

3:15 p.m. – 4:15 p.m. Session 5: Policy Landscape, Solutions: Legal and political solutions to overcome challenges identified: This session will highlight some of the policy and legal changes needed, at which levels of government, and through which mechanisms.

4:15 p.m. – 5 p.m. Session 6: Achieving legal and policy solutions: What will it take to secure these changes? Which actors are working to design/implement the changes/solutions? What more can be done to support them.

5 p.m. – 5:30 p.m. Recommendations and Wrap-Up

Case Study Presentations

Each case study presenter will address the following questions:

Overview of problem (e.g., Country, cities, communities; year/phase in the conflict; and phase along the “spectrum” of concern; FTO groups of concern; number of persons of concern).

Policy framework? (e.g. Was the program at issue part of broader national level strategy; what level of political support was there for the program or underlying policy).

Legal framework? What was the relevant legislation, if any, governing the program? What legislation governed engagement with targets of the program (e.g., Terrorist organizations).

Stakeholders involved in designing/implementing the program? (e.g., National government, local government, community leaders, private sector, and/or international organizations/NGOs?)

What is the scale? (e.g., How many individuals could/can the program accommodate? Was the program national or local in scope?

International legal and policy architecture pertaining to The Prevention Project theme of rehabilitation and reintegration programs are critical yet legally and politically complex elements in the Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) tool-kit.

Firstly, INSCT representatives will begin by discussing the principal US federal law used to prosecute suspected terrorists and supporters—the so-called Material Support Statute (18 USC §2339B)—and its implications for CVE, specifically rehabilitation and reintegration efforts. The goal of this notoriously sweeping law is to prevent acts of terrorism by striking at financial and other support structures that help facilitate attacks.

Toward that end, the Material Support Statute makes it a crime to provide almost any sort of good or service to terrorists or designated terrorist organizations. They also will discuss judicial interpretations of the statute, in particular the US Supreme Court’s decision in Holder vs. Humanitarian Law Project, which held that providing a terrorist organization with training and instruction on how to resolve disputes peacefully and without violence count as prohibited material support. As we will see, that expansive interpretation has important implications not only for foreign terrorist fighters (FTFs) but also for those who use CVE strategies to address FTF problems.

Secondly, INSCT representatives will discuss results from research for the UN Counter-Terrorism Committee Executive Directorate (CTED) that examines member states’ implementation of CVE law and policy strategies in compliance with UN Security Resolution 2178 for managing the foreign terrorist fighter (FTF) phenomenon.[1]

Read More

This work includes findings on each of the cases of interest to the workshop (i.e., Nigeria, Kenya, Somalia, Canada, EU, US, and Kosovo). After outlining general results, patterns, and challenges, INSCT will discuss one solution area for stakeholders: making clearer domain (i.e., criminal law, civic engagement, military-CT) distinctions about when to use the right CVE tool for the right problem, and how to make tools work together.

As Eric Rosand (2016), Rosa Brooks (2016), and others note, since prevention strategies are often cheaper than military approaches, civil engagement, prevention, and off-ramping programs need to be taken seriously—but in ways that “tie” these approaches together in an overarching deradicalization law and policy architecture which applies similar tenets (i.e., extremism is a global, cross-cutting problem; it’s cause are multivariate, etc.) across domains.

[1] William C. Banks et al., Countering Foreign Terrorist Fighters: Criminal, Administrative, & Prosecutorial Strategies to Halt the International Flow of Terrorism (INSCT/CTED, 2016). While the term terrorist and foreign terrorist fighter lack definitional consensus in international law, UN SCR 2178 provides this description: “Nationals who travel or attempt to travel to a State other than their States of residence or nationality, and other individuals who travel or attempt to travel from their territories to a State other than their States of residence or nationality, for the purpose of the perpetration, planning, or preparation of, or participation in, terrorist acts, or the providing or receiving of terrorist training. S.C. Res. 2178, para. 6(a), U.N. Doc. S/RES/2178 (Sept. 24, 2014).

Terrorist Prevention Act (2013); Terrorism Prevention Bill (2011), where president may declare a “Suspected International Terrorist” (SIT) by his/her involvement in acts of international terrorism, affiliation, or links with known TO, domestically or internationally (i.e., name in UNSCR or African Union and Economic Community of West African States document.

If a SIT is a citizen of Nigeria, but not by natural birth their citizenship can be revoked.

Canadian Passport Order gives Minister authority to “refuse or revoke a passport if such action is necessary for the national security of Canada or another country.”

Amending Criminal Code (2013): Combating Terrorism Act which makes it a criminal offense for a person to leave or attempt to leave CA to participate in a TO or terrorist activity.

Foreign Enlistment Act prohibits an individual to enlist “with a foreign state at war with a friendly state.”

Considering preventive action in criminalizing as hate speech justifications for terrorist acts and preventive detention for those traveling to participate in TO or terrorist activity.

Presentations

Research Center CVE Student Presentations April 2016

On April 28, 2017, students in INSCT Director of Research Corri Zoli’s National Security and Counterterrorism Research Center presented research findings in the workshop “Understanding Interdisciplinary Responses to International Terrorism & Violent Extremisms” at SU College of Law. The students’ work was the culmination of a semester-long partnership with Emory University, George Washington University, and the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Strategic Partnerships with Colleges and Universities.

Graduate students in INSCT’s Law 822 Research Center (Foreign Terrorist Fighters (FTF) and Countering Violent Extremism) discuss their findings with Director of Research Corri Zoli and Army War College Fellow LTC Michael McFadden. This project is a collaboration with the United Nations Counterterrorism Executive Directorate (CTED) and its Senior Legal Officer David Scharia.

The initial project focused on UN-level policies to counter FTF, most notable SCR 2178, which calls on the international community to stop the creation and movement of FTF and to counter the rhetoric and tactics that foster violent extremism within their borders.

Brittani Howell (SU Law)—Outlier states (Belgium, Indonesia) that contribute disproportionately low or high FTF to the Middle East

Related Projects—Law 822 (Research Center)

2017

Under the guidance of INSCT Director William C. Banks and Director of Research Corri Zoli, students in the National Security and Counterterrorism Research Center, a working laboratory for law and other graduate students interested in contemporary security issues, worked on the following Countering Violent Extremist (CVE) projects:

A multi-institutional partnership with Emory University, George Washington University, and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), to create recommendations for the DHS Secretary for Strategic Partnerships with Colleges and Universities and the K-12 Community with relation to CVE-related academic programs and research.

A continuation of the collaboration with the UN Counterterrorism Executive Directorate (UN CTED) examining member states’ implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 2178 (2014) to examine the domestic implementation of UNSCR 2178 and challenges among member states; to explore and compare emerging CVE laws and policies; and to track Foreign Terrorist Fighter (FTF) flows and returnees.

2016

Under the guidance of INSCT Director William C. Banks and Director of Research Corri Zoli, students in the National Security and Counterterrorism Research Center, a working laboratory for law and other graduate students interested in contemporary security issues, presented research on how UN member states from various regions are complying with UN Security Council Resolution 2178 (2014), which calls on member states to prevent the “recruiting, organizing, transporting, or equipping of individuals who travel to a State other than their States of residence or nationality for the purpose of the perpetration, planning of, or participation in terrorist acts.” The presentation was made at SU Law to visiting representatives of the UN Counter-Terrorism Committee Executive Directorate (CTED), including David Scharia, UN CTED Senior Legal Officer. A follow-up report is under development.

To obtain a copy of this report, email Director of Research Corri Zoli.

2015

Students in the National Security and Counterterrorism Research Center created (for UN CTED) three interrelated reports that addressed UN member states’ criminal, administrative, and prosecutorial strategies to halt the international flow of terrorism, as well as states’ compliance with UN Security Council Resolution 2178 (2014). In March 2015, 18 students representing SU Maxwell School and SU Law presented the reports to the UN CTED at the UN headquarters in New York City.